New Covenant Baptist

Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus.

I wanted to introduce myself here. We have a small church in Spokane, WA. And post my sermons on our youtube channel or on our website @ NewCovenantBaptist.org.

My general views are: Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone, through His once-and-for-all blood atonement, Once Saved Always Saved, and KJV Only.

God bless you all,
Afshin
New Covenant Baptist

 

Thanks for the question. I don't hold to any particular formal theological system. But I can explain my doctrines individually, such as salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and once saved always saved as key, fundamental key doctrines.

Perhaps you can educate me on what covenant theology in particular is?

If it has to do with the old vs. new covenant, I do believe that Jesus fulfilled the old covenant in Himself, being God made flesh and perfect and sinless as both fully God and man, and that our ultimate authority and understanding of the Scriptures ought to be rooted in the New Testament, which was initiated by the shedding of His blood. However, I do hold that the Old Covenant is good for doctrine, and learning and understanding when understood correctly in light of the new covenant.

 

If you were to examine all of my doctrines, you could probably find a theological framework which fits me best, but it is unlikely that I would fit 100% into any one single camp, since no theological system understands the Bible perfectly. This is why I prefer to examine my doctrine individually, based on the merits of God's Word.

I am not Calvinist, but I am not Arminian, as Arminiasm likely holds to many views that I reject. I am not Calvinist, in that I believe we have freewill to receive or reject Christ, and that we are only elect and predestined based on God's foreknowledge, rather than His imposed will.

That is why I believe the Calvinistic vs. Arminian argument is a false dichotomy, kind of like "Which do you like better, 'Pepsi or Coke?'" I would choose neither, as I don't drink soda.

I do believe that Christ fulfilled the old covenant in Himself, and is the mediator of a new covenant. In that sense, I am a "new covenant" believer.

Hope this clarifies. God bless.

 

ps. I forgot to answer your question about who made me KJV-only. I believe God led me to this, through the help of a pastor that I now disagree with vehemently on numerous issues, named Steven Anderson. I want myself far removed from him, as he falls deeply into numerous hateful teachings and legalistic behavior uncomely of the Saints of God.

 

Thanks for the welcome. God bless!

 

Steven Anderson has many heresies. I agree. But if you are not KJVO, what are you? Do you believe the ESV or NASB and other versions are just as accurate and valid?

 

I agree with you that the he Byzantine Text is the accurate one, which is what the KJV is ultimately based on. Practically speaking, there is no other modern version that is based on the Majority Text or Erasmus' TR. The modern versions bring in the corrupt Alexandrian texts which have roots in Roman Catholicism. That is why I reject the modern versions. I know of no modern Bible that doesn't in some ways contradict the Byzantine texts. I also believe in the preservation of God's Word, so that by His providence, he has preserved His Word in the KJV. I don't see that same providence at work in the ESV for example or the NIV, which are poor versions of His Word with errors and contradictions. I haven't found any errors in the KJV. So practically speaking, as far as the English translations available, the KJV appears to be the only one that is inerrant.

If I could read Greek or Hebrew, I would not be opposed to studying the original tongues, but I am not, so for me as an English speaker, the KJV is the only real option.

 

I'm not an expert in Greek or Hebrew, so I can only make comparisons between the KJV and later versions and examine the logical and historical arguments surrounding this debate. There are clear differences between the KJV and modern versions, and so three possibilities present themselves, if we are to hold to the position of inerrancy of God's Word and God's ability to preserve His Word in the translations throughout the ages.

1. The KJV is 100% accurate.
2. The NASB / ESV / NIV etc. are 100% accurate.
3. None are 100% accurate, and only the missing autographs are infallible; therefore, God has not preserved His Word.

In other words, the KJV and the modern versions cannot all be right, because they contradict one another in numerous areas.

The only 4th logical possibility would be that God has confusingly decided to preserve His Word buffet-style in all of the modern translations combined and it is up to us to try to figure out which passages are correct in each of the numerous modern Bible translations that are available. But God is not a God of confusion, so I didn't even list this 4th possibility above.

I've only been KJVO for about 3 years, so I am still learning all of the issues surrounding this, but my understanding so far is that the underlying manuscripts surrounding the KJV were built upon the same Majority Text manuscripts & the TR as the previous English Bibles, like the Tyndale, Wycliff, Geneva, Bishop's Bible, etc. All of these were present during the KJV translation and the KJV built upon these, which is why all agree with one another in scope and content.

But then after the KJV, in the 1800s, the Westcott/Hort edition used the minority, corrupt Alexandrian text and gave them preference over the Majority Text and the TR in many cases. This led to the Nestle Aland edition which the modern versions are based on. As such, there are real differences between these underlying manuscripts, such as the KJV saying that we "are saved" vs. the moderns saying we are "being saved", making salvation a process rather than an instant at the moment of genuine belief (1 Cor 15:2).

Btw: there were Jesuits sitting on the Nestle Aland committee which produced the underlying texts for the modern versions. That should be suspect in and of itself. You should check out the documentary, "A Lamp in the Dark" free on youtube. It explains the Roman Catholic connection to the modern manuscripts.

This is my understanding so far. I realize I need to continue to study to make my knowledge of this issue more accurate. So I welcome corrections in my historical knowledge of the debate, as I am still learning. I used to read the KJV or the NKJV before I became KJVO. I never could get myself to take the NIV seriously (although I read it for a few years) and I never could get myself to stick with the NASB, as all the majesty of God's Word was stripped from it. I tried to read the ESV when it came out and I was excited about it, but was quickly disappointed by the translation, especially it's butchering of Psalm 23 and other passages.

I also don't believe you have to be KJVO to be saved, as I've been saved 23 years and was not KJV only the first 20 years, although it was my preferred version.

I welcome your response. God bless.
Afshin

 

What substantial changes are there between the 1611 and 1769? I've been led to believe these are only typographical and font changes, not actual changes in the content. Can you list one major difference between the 1611 and 1769?